A heads-up on trigger warnings

Trigger warnings have come under fire this year. In the Atlantic’s article, The Coddling of the American Mind, which takes on collegiate political correctness and “vindictive protectiveness,” trigger warnings are said to catastrophize educationally valuable content. Others describe a negative chilling effect on students who begin to censor themselves unduly in a college environment where safe spaces are being pushed. Today we look to clarify the motivations and effects of trigger warnings in order to resolve the concerns for students who have had traumatizing experiences and those for preserving educational discourse.

Starting with a definition, a trigger warning is simply a heads-up to a consumer of material that traumatizingly graphic content lays ahead. This contrasts with the heavily politicized definition of warnings as labels for anything “that might evoke a negative emotional response.” The concern is that trigger warnings will censor discussions, cause unease in the classroom or arrest the thought of students. However, the simple heads-up warnings that introduce episodes of Law and Order or violent movies do not cause any similar cries of coddling or big brother. These warnings and the short sentences that many professors and writers choose to include before their material are not redactions or megaphones. Further, it seems baseline acceptable that the prevention of psychological harm to survivors of sexual assault or victims of PTSD is a good thing. On that note, professors are not therapists, and the arguments that point to exposure therapy fail to acknowledge that.

But moreover, objections fail to address directly why some particular types of content are prefaced to begin with. Too often, the conversation centers on the experiences of those who already sit comfortably with their lives. The portrayal of black bodies in the media is not discussed in how it is undeniably a depiction of violence. Movements like the hashtag blacklivesmatter look to explain the absurdity of the double standard in play. Nationwide attention and exposure of these issues has allowed those who accept the hurt and violence they face to speak up. As a result, those who have always sat comfortably have grown uneasy at the discomfort they must now confront.

Yet dialing back to the classroom, there is the concern that introducing trigger warnings might cause students who are not passionately on either side to hedge their bets and filter their own speech for fear of being perceived as antagonistic. We hope that these students will not find themselves chilled by warnings. Academia and cultural and social input are not mutually exclusive, rather they compliment each other, particularly in college where individual experiences are shared more so than any other time in our lives. By encouraging awareness of the inclusive and understanding mindset requisite to being part of a diverse community, we want students to understand the motivations behind trigger warnings and the simplicity of their implementation. We also want students to be clear on their potential drawbacks, particularly in their politicization, and how to do away with them.

Ultimately, a professor or writer knows best their content, their audience and the dynamics therein. With the variety of forms trigger warnings come in and the differences in materials they are applied to, it would be nonsensical to introduce a blanket recommendation for or against trigger warnings. Instead, it is fundamental that they be regarded in a way that is open, honest and respectful. Everybody’s goal should be conversations that are more empathetic and inclusive at the expense of no student.